Ted Grant

Scotland—Socialism or Nationalism?

A Marxist Analysis

National question re-emerges

The collapse of Stalinism, the impasse of capitalism
internationally, and the weakness of the forces of Marxism, has
resulted in the re-emergence of the national question. Linked to
the genuine desires of oppressed nationalities for emancipation,
the national question — far from being solved — has
become exacerbated under the crisis of both capitalism and
Stalinism. The growth of national antagonisms, spilling over into
civil war in a number of countries, illustrates the explosive
nature of nationalism in the epoch of capitalist decay. As a
result, in a whole number of cases, petit-bourgeois and bourgeois
nationalism threatens to throw back the workers' movement by
undermining the essential unity of the working class in the
struggle for the socialist revolution.

In the modern epoch, only the socialist transformation of
society can offer the solution to the national question — a
task left over from the bourgeois democratic revolution. That is
why it has occupied a central place in the writings of Marx,
Engels, Lenin and Trotsky. These ideas, in turn, have been extended
and developed by the British Marxists, around the journal
Socialist Appeal, over the past four or five decades. The
attitude of the Labour Movement to the national question is, in
reality, a life and death issue. Any mistake on this vital
question, as has been demonstrated repeatedly, will be paid for at
terrible cost by the working class in the future.

The national question, which has largely lain dormant for
decades, has re-emerged in Scotland over the last few years. Its
first revival in the late 1960s, when the SNP won the Hamilton
by-election with a 46% swing from Labour, was largely a product of
the disillusionment with the counter-reforms of the Wilson
Government. This failure of Labour to satisfy its supporters, after
thirteen years of Tory Government, provided the social and
political conditions for the rise of nationalism. Again, the
discovery of North Sea oil in 1970, gave added impetus to the
nationalist cause. By the time of the 1974 General Election, the
vote for the SNP had increased to 22% in February, and to 30% in
October.

It was just before this that we published a document The
National Question in Scotland and Wales [May 1973] dealing
with the principal issues from a class point of view. It is worth
recalling that at that stage the leading Scottish comrades refused
to accept the existence of a national problem at all, and even the
existence of a Scottish nation. Events have subsequently
demonstrated the correctness of the principled position that was
taken by ourselves at that time.

Unfortunately, the Scottish comrades who have recently
established the Scottish Militant Labour organisation (SML) have
begun to largely water down these principles and are bending under
the pressures of petit-bourgeois nationalism. In an attempt to find
a short-cut to those youth who are flirting with nationalism, the
leaders of the SML are, in an opportunist fashion, adopting a
nationalist coloration. The very establishment of a separate
"Scottish" organisation is proof of this, repeating the tragic
mistakes of John Maclean's Scottish Workers' Republican Party of
the early 1920s but without even its basis of support. This
opportunism will have the same fatal consequences for the future
SML organisation as that which befell Maclean's party.

The crisis of British capitalism has had a devastating effect in
both Wales and Scotland. In Wales manufacturing industry has been
drastically undermined over the past decade, with the virtual
destruction of its prime industries coal and steel. Although 16,000
are still employed in steel, mining is all but finished —
just three pits are left. Welsh unemployment is nearly 10%
officially while the Welsh wage rates are the lowest in Britain.
Male earnings are 87% of the national average and female earnings
88%. As one commentator explained recently, "In Wales today the
people are more impoverished in terms of disposable income than any
other part of Britain — in terms of the capacity to spend and
refuel the economy Wales is worst placed than any other area."
(Daily Telegraph, 24/2/92) These social and economic
conditions have resulted in the Tories being reduced to six out of
38 Welsh MPs. On the other hand, it has resulted in increased
support for greater Welsh autonomy, which was reflected in a recent
NOP Survey indicating 47% support for a Welsh Assembly —
double the 1979 referendum figure.

In Scotland, after nine years of "boom", unemployment stands at
over 300,000. Forced emigration over the last decade has reached
around 150,000. The latest announcement of the closure of
Ravenscraig will mean economic devastation in Lanarkshire. Many
parts, with the closure of manufacturing industry, are facing
depression. On top of this a further 54,000 manufacturing jobs are
expected to go by the turn of the century. (The Scotsman,
22nd January) In the inner city areas dysentery and rickets have
reappeared — as in other cities nationally — a direct
product of the decay of British capitalism.

Tories undermined

These social conditions have resulted in the collapse of support
for the Tories, who in the 1950s were the largest party in
Scotland. Over the past decade they have been reduced to a rump of
only 9 MPs. The poll tax, used as an experiment by Thatcher in
Scotland, was seen by many as the final nail in their political
coffin and has resulted in the Tories being regarded largely as
representatives of a "colonial power". Their electoral prospects
appear even bleaker as further splits have emerged in their ranks
over their attitude towards devolution, resulting in the recent
resignation of Brian Townsend, the head of the Tory's information
department in Scotland. According to Scotlandon
Sunday (16/2/92) a third of Scottish Tory MPs and prospective
candidates are opposed to the party line. Both Major and Lang have
taken a hard stance against any form of devolution, which given the
current feelings in Scotland, will result in a further loss of Tory
seats. Major believed this would polarise the issue between those
supporting independence and those for the union, hoping to boost
Tory support. With only around 20% favouring the status quo, he has
miscalculated badly, threatening the very break-up of the UK. It
demonstrates the short-sightedness of the political representatives
of the bourgeoisie. In the event of a Tory victory they will be
forced to introduce some kind of devolution.

Over the past decade the main beneficiary of this social crisis
has been the Labour Party whose parliamentary representation has
risen to 48 out of 72 seats. In the Regional and District councils
they have an even greater domination. Unfortunately, instead of
using this support and authority to launch a struggle against the
Tory Government, the Labour leaders in Scotland have failed to
offer the working class any real alternative. On the contrary, they
have capitulated and carried out the dictates of the Tories.

This has resulted in growing frustration in the working class,
and even middle class, who are desperately looking for a way out of
the impasse. The failure of the reformist leaders has allowed the
Scottish nationalists to fill this vacuum and demagogically
outflank — in words — the Labour Party. This
‘left' nationalist rhetoric is an attempt to make a
breakthrough into Labour's urban strongholds where they have no
representation apart from Sillars' victory in Govan in 1988. This
"radical" face of nationalism arose out of the victory of the
Salmond/Sillars wing of the SNP in the early 1980s whose strategy
was to abandon the "Tartan Tory" image, and tackle head on Labour
in its heartlands.

The growth of Scottish nationalism over the past few years was
born out of a frustration with the role of the Labour leaders,
whose actions have added grist to the mill of the nationalists. How
should Marxists view this situation?

Although we support the aspirations for greater autonomy, and
can understand the reasons for a layer of youth and some workers
looking towards the demagogy of the nationalists, we must
nevertheless take an implacable stand against nationalism, which
seeks to divide the working class and its organisations. There can
be no compromise on this issue. There can be no attempt to
accommodate Scottish nationalism. Although the Scottish
nationalists have jettisoned their "Tartan Tory" image for a more
radical one, it would be fatal to make concessions to a political
trend that threatens the unity of the working class.

"Immature Bolshevism"?

Unfortunately, the leaders of SML, far from sharply criticising
nationalism are attempting to tail-end its pseudo-radicalism. "This
upsurge of national discontent should not be dismissed as a
reactionary development or a diversion from the class struggle",
states Alan McCombes, the editor of ScottishMilitant. (13/12/91) We can agree it is not a question of
simply dismissing nationalism. But how should Scottish nationalism
be concretely viewed or characterised? According to Alan McCombes,
"It is closely linked to a sense of class hatred against the Tories
and everything they represent." The only conclusion you can draw
from this position is that Scottish nationalism is essentially
progressive. Many leaders of the SML have gone as far as to falsely
characterise Scottish nationalism, as distinct from bourgeois
nationalism, as merely being the "outer shell of an immature
Bolshevism". (Quoting Leon Trotsky completely out of context.)

Although we would look differently on workers who had been
influenced by nationalism, in contrast to bourgeois and
petit-bourgeois sections, nevertheless we would not in any way
pander to their prejudices. The talk of an "immature Bolshevism" is
simply an attempt to do exactly that.

Incidentally, just as Marxists would have a sympathetic approach
towards workers influenced by nationalism, we would be sympathetic
to those influenced by syndicalism and other false ideas. However,
we do not recognise it as "immature Bolshevism" or pander to
it.

The quote itself is from the History of the Russian
Revolution and refers not to nationalism in general, but to
the specific experience of the Lettish workers and peasants who
came over to the Bolshevik position as early as May 1917. "In these
circumstances", relates Trotsky, "the national antagonisms whenever
they coincide with class contradictions became especially hot. The
age-old hostility between Lettish peasants and the German barons
impelled many thousands of labouring Letts to volunteer at the
outbreak of the war. The sharp-shooting regiments of Lettish farm
hands and peasants were among the best troops at the front. As
early as May, however, they had already come out for a Soviet
government. Their nationalism was only the outer shell of an
immature Bolshevism." (History of the Russian
Revolution, page 902, our emphasis).

In any case it is a complete exaggeration to compare, as the
leaders of the SML are attempting to do, the national oppression of
the Scots with that of the nationalities in Tsarist Russia, "the
prison house of nations". In reality, this is an attempt to use
Trotsky as a cloak of respectability to disguise their succumbing
to nationalism.

Although we are sympathetic to those with genuine illusions in
Scottish nationalism, the way to win them away from the SNP is an
implacable stand against this trend. We must above all expose its
reactionary divisive character which poses colossal dangers for the
working class movement. While supporting the genuine national
aspirations of the Scottish people for greater control over their
lives, the task of Marxism is to combat the fundamentally divisive
nature of nationalism.

According to Alex Salmond, "The SNP is not a hard-left or
Socialist Party." (Socialist, 10/3/92) He is correct, the
SNP, like its Welsh counter-part Plaid Cymru, is a bourgeois
nationalist organisation. The fact that it has certain
‘radical' policies is neither here nor there. That does not
determine its class character.

The fundamental programme of the SNP is not the overthrow of
capitalism, but of working within the confines of capitalism, while
blaming the problems of the Scottish people on "the English".
Despite the rhetoric of Sillars, the SNP stands for a capitalist
Scotland. In its 1987 Manifesto, it talks about "an independent
Scotland [being] governed by a democratic parliament...The head of
state [will] remain the Queen in a limited constitutional
monarchy." Their present policies talk about "a Scottish currency
in the ERM, bolstered by strong exports and oil revenues." It stood
for "Tax Reform which will remove the higher business rate burden
that is crippling Scottish business." It goes on about setting up
"a Scottish Exports Unit to work in conjunction with our embassies
and consulates abroad to promote Scottish exports." It wants to set
up an "Industrial Equity and Investment Fund, initially to the
value of £160 million, to stimulate new investment in
industrial expansion..." Finally, they are determined to pursue a
policy to "ensure stability for Scottish business."

Under these circumstances it is no accident that they have
attracted a whole layer of industrialists and gentry. They have
also recruited a whole number of disaffected Tories. One such
prominent Tory, Ian Lawson, ended up as a vice-chairperson of the
SNP.

In Westminster, the SNP parliamentary group have voted with the
Tories, and supported a host of anti-working class measures, such
as the anti-trade union laws. Where they have been in power in
Angus Regional Council, they have carried out fully the dictates of
the Tory Government, even implementing the poll tax. In other
regional councils, such as the Grampians, they have frequently
voted with the Tories, again including the poll tax. A Tayside SNP
councillor, George Allan, when challenged, retorted they were "here
to represent the rich as well".

Marxists must tell the workers the truth. And the truth is that
nationalism (no matter how it is dolled up with pseudo "socialist"
phrase-mongering) represents no way forward for the working people.
Only by uniting with the workers of England and Wales, in a common
struggle against their oppressors, can their basic problems be
solved.

Marxists defend the right of the Scottish people to
self-determination. But, in the first place, this does not mean
that we take it upon ourselves to advocate separation. On the
contrary, we must fight against it. It is necessary to explain
forcefully that the establishment of a separate Scottish state on a
capitalist basis would be a disaster for the workers of Scotland,
England and Wales.

In the second place, it is necessary to wage an implacable
struggle to defend the fundamental unity of the Scottish,
English and Welsh working class. That was always the
standpoint of Lenin and Trotsky who resisted every attempt to
divide the organisations of the working class on national
lines.

Lenin's position

Despite the "principled" stand of the SML for the right of
self-determination, Lenin never considered the right of
self-determination as an absolute principle, regardless of time and
place. It was always subordinated to the general interests of the
proletariat and the struggle for world socialist revolution. "We
are not obliged to support either ‘any' struggle for
independence or ‘any' republican or anti-clerical movement,"
he wrote in 1918. (The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed
up)

Lenin insisted that the workers of oppressor states
must defend the right of oppressed states to
self-determination. But on the other hand he explained many
times that the first duty of the Marxists of nationally oppressed
states was to fight against nationalism, stressing the need for
working class unity.

"But in all cases he must fight against small
nation narrow-mindedness, seclusion and isolation, consider the
whole and the general, subordinate the particular to the general
interest." (ibid.)

It is entirely wrong for "Marxists" in Scotland to tail-end the
nationalists, to prettify their ideas and echo their prejudices.
But this is just what recent articles on Scottish nationalism have
done in Militant and Scottish Militant.

The article on 13th December last year, which covers the centre
pages, attacks extensively the policies of the Tories and the
Labour leaders, but fails to take up in any real way the
arguments of the Scottish nationalists! All it has to say is
that "nothing much would change" in an independent Scottish
state!

This is no mere slip, but a consistent failure throughout
every article dealing with the national question. The
centre page article of 20/9/91 contains hardly a word of criticism
of the SNP. On the contrary, Scottish nationalism is pictured in
glowing terms, and illusions are deliberately built up in the
nationalists: "The sense of national identity remains more powerful
than ever"; "In recent years, as part of the general revolt of
youth against the regimentation and uniformity of capitalism, there
has been a revival of Scottish culture"; as opposed to England,
"Scotland where the mood has swung relentlessly leftwards...It is
the SNP which stands on a radical, left wing programme." The
article contains a picture of Sillars with the glowing caption: "A
majority of under-24s now support the SNP."

Apart from a side-swipe at the class origins of the SNP, it
lamely criticises the nationalist idea "that the Scottish economy
can be regenerated through small businesses." Without a publicly
owned economy, the article continues, "an independent Scotland
would become a colony of US, Japanese and German multinational
capitalism." These are the few scant lines devoted in total to a
"criticism" of independence.

The articles on 27/9/91 and 4/10/91 completely fail to deal with
the SNP. "How left they are compared to Labour" seems to be their
main thrust! Far from exposing nationalism, they are fostering
illusions in the "radical" SNP. Again the article dealing with the
lessons of the Kincardine by-election (Militant 15/11/91),
while attacking Labour is soft on the nationalists. It concludes
with the hollow phrase: "We will strive to draw back those young
people and workers enticed by the SNP." How you do this by
pandering to nationalism is not clear. In the full page article on
the SML (7/2/92) there is not a single word of criticism of the
Scottish nationalists!

Again the article on the closure of Ravenscraig by the editor of
ScottishMilitant (24/1/92) is nothing more than
a diatribe against the Labour leaders, while letting the SNP off
the hook. "The Ravenscraig fiasco has given a powerful impetus to
the SNP", states the article. "Further advances in SNP support now
look likely elsewhere." It was a wonderful advert for anyone
interested in joining the nationalists!

Pro-nationalist slant

The whole slant and tone in the article that appeared on 20/9/91
is pro-nationalist in character: "From the underdeveloped societies
in Africa and Asia to the advanced economies of the West and now in
Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, nationalism is on the march."
The author deliberately mixes up all kinds of different national
movements, without bothering to distinguish what is progressive
from what is reactionary in the concrete conditions, in order to
paint a general picture of "nationalism on the march". He gives
credence to the quoted phrase "Western Europe ablaze in an inferno
of national rebellion." The whole phenomena is portrayed as
"progressive", "anti-capitalist" and "anti-Stalinist". The growth
of the SNP is also posed in the same light: "the sense of national
identity remains more powerful than ever...In recent years, as part
of the general revolt of youth against the regimentation and
uniformity of modern capitalism, there has been a revival of
Scottish culture." Unfortunately the author misses the point
entirely. Precisely in a situation where nationalism was sweeping
Europe, it would be essential for Marxists to remain absolutely
firm, not to capitulate to nationalism but to firmly raise the
banner of socialist internationalism.

In any case, there are national movements and national
movements. Lenin explained many times that the national question,
of all questions, cannot be dealt with in the abstract:

"The categorical requirement of Marxist theory in
investigating any social question is that it be examined within
definite historical limits, and, if it refers to a
particular country (e.g. the national programme for a given
country), that account be taken of the specific features
distinguishing that country from others in the same historical
epoch." (The rights of Nations to Self-Determination,
emphasis in original)

In all their material, these comrades have forgotten some of the
fundamental ideas of Marxism. The starting-point for Marxists is
the fact that, in the present epoch, the productive forces have
outgrown both private ownership and the nation state.

For a temporary period capitalism managed partially to overcome
these contradictions through the development of world trade. This
gave a further impetus to the integration of the world economy,
which, in turn, has interacted upon world trade, creating an upward
spiral of economic growth. But this process is reaching its limits
and, at a certain stage, will turn into its opposite. This is shown
by the crisis of GATT, where the seven big imperialist powers are
finding difficulties in compromising over the future of world
trade.

A symptom of the impasse of world capitalism, of its senile
decay, is the re-emergence of the national question and national
antagonisms in developed capitalists countries where it seemed to
have been overcome long ago. Thus we have the problem of Corsica in
France, the explosive national problem in Belgium, and the
re-emergence of the national problem in Scotland and Wales. Added
to this is the long standing national problems in the Basque
Country, Catalonia, and Galicia.

Stalinism's failure

On the other hand, the failure of Stalinism to solve the
national problem has been revealed by a whole series of bloody
conflicts in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.

All these developments were predicted in advance by the Marxist
tendency nearly twenty years ago. In May 1973, we wrote the
following:

"The victory of proletarian bonapartism in Eastern
Europe, Cuba, China, Burma and Syria, has resulted in the abolition
of capitalism and landlordism — an immense step forward. But
it has left these countries within the confines of the national
state. The interests of the bureaucracy, ruling in these countries,
results in an undemocratic concentration of power in the hands of a
tiny elite. They rule remote from the masses of workers and
peasants. Power is concentrated in the centre. The ruling elite
rules with a chauvinistic mentality. There is no de-centralisation
of power to the peoples on the periphery. The minorities within
their borders have been nationally oppressed — in China by
the dominant Han and in the USSR by the Great Russians. Thus the
limited character of the national state, revealing itself in
military police dictatorships, has raised anew the national
question in these deformed workers' states.

"One of the contradictions of the modern epoch is
that at a time when the national state is revealing its baleful
limitations the national question, far from being solved in these
countries, becomes a festering and chronic problem." (The
National Question — Scotland and Wales, page 1)

The document then goes on to point out the mistakes of the
sectarian groups on this question. Unfortunately the SML is
beginning to emulate them by capitulating to Scottish
nationalism.

"The Marxist tendency must devote the same
scrupulous care and attention to the problem as was evinced by
Lenin. One of the conditions for the victory of the proletariat in
Russia was Lenin's contribution on the national question. The
brilliance of the dialectical method of Lenin and Trotsky is shown
by the mistake of the petit bourgeois tendencies, masquerading as
Trotskyists at the present time, in their attitude towards the
national question.

"In fighting against the national oppression of
the blacks, Puerto Ricans, Chicanos and other minorities in the
USA, the [American] SWP has capitulated to petit bourgeois
nationalism. They have fought for the separate
organisation of these nationalities, instead of fighting for one
centralised party, united trade unions and other workers
organisations.

"Thus they have committed the elementary error of
capitulating to nationalism — even the nationalism of the
oppressed. They have also contributed to the undermining of Marxism
among the oppressed minorities." (ibid., emphasis in the
original)

The fight of self-determination is not a socialist, but a
bourgeois democratic demand. It has its place but is always
subordinate to the needs of the class struggle.

In any exposition of Marxist policy for Scotland and Wales the
unity of the workers interests with those in England must be
emphasised and re-emphasised. Class solidarity and community of
interests in the struggle against capitalism — English,
Scottish and Welsh capitalism is paramount.

Maclean's contribution

There cannot be a separate struggle for socialism or a workers'
government in Scotland separate and apart from that in the rest of
Britain. That was the utopian idea of John Maclean, put forward in
the early 1920s — an idea which was derided by Lenin and
Trotsky as fundamentally false.

John Maclean was a prominent Scottish Marxist who played an
outstanding role in promoting the ideas and cause of Marxism before
and after the Bolshevik revolution. Dubbed the "Scottish Lenin",
Maclean worked like a Trojan to promote the principles of Marxism
amongst the working class of Scotland: at street meetings,
pit-heads, work-gates, anywhere workers would gather. He epitomised
the "Red Clydeside" that emerged after the first World War, and
gave a concrete expression to the mass movement of that time.
Repeatedly arrested and imprisoned for his revolutionary stand
against the war, Maclean became an outstanding figure-head of the
revolutionary movement in Britain. To Lenin, Maclean was one of the
"heroic forerunners" of the Communist International; when the
Bolsheviks took power he was appointed the Russian consul in
Glasgow in January 1918, and as honorary president of the first
All-Russian Congress of Soviets, along with Karl Liebknecht. In
this way Maclean's courage and determination will remain an
inspiration to class conscious workers of every generation.

However, Maclean also made a number of serious mistakes in terms
of tactics and strategy. This is not the place for a thorough
criticism of those mistakes. Nevertheless his fundamental error was
to succumb to the pressures of Scottish nationalism. Maclean
refused to join the newly created Communist Party, advocating
instead a Scottish Communist Party. When this failed to materialise
he turned towards the idea of a Scottish Workers' Republic and the
establishment of the Scottish Workers' Republican Party.

"Russia could not produce the World Revolution,"
stated Maclean shortly before his death in November 1923. "Neither
can we in Gorbals, in Scotland, in Great Britain. Before England is
ready I am sure the next war will be on us. I therefore consider
that Scotland's wisest policy is to declare for a republic in
Scotland, so that the youths of Scotland will not be forced out to
die for England's markets.

"I accordingly stand out as a Scottish Republican
candidate, feeling sure that if Scotland had to elect a Parliament
to sit in Glasgow it would vote for a working class parliament.

"Such a Parliament would have to use the might of
the workers to force the land and the means of production in
Scotland out of the grasp of the brutal few who control them, and
place them at the full disposal of the community. The Social
Revolution is possible sooner in Scotland than in England..."

This unfortunate turn of Maclean towards nationalism, reflected
a frustration with the current political situation. The
revolutionary tide that followed the war began to ebb after 1920.
The revolutionary movement on the Clyde revealed the revolutionary
potential of the Scottish working class. Maclean grew increasingly
impatient with the struggle in England which had been largely
side-tracked by the Labour and trade union leadership. It was out
of this impatience and frustration that Maclean began to look
towards the short-cut of a socialist revolution in Scotland as an
example to the rest of Britain. This was a fundamentally false
perspective. Within a few years the whole of Britain was shaken by
the 1926 General Strike.

Our task is not to emulate Maclean's mistakes, but to learn from
them and inoculate the youth against impatience and short-cuts that
could lead the movement into the swamp of nationalism.
Unfortunately it is precisely John Maclean's errors that are used
to justify the creation of the SML. At its founding conference in
February, attended by about 200 people, Alan McCombes quoted
approvingly a commemoration to Maclean: "The inscription says:
‘To John Maclean, a man who forged the Scottish link in the
golden chain of world socialism.' So the setting [for the
conference] is appropriate." (ScottishMilitant,
6/3/92) To emphasis the achievement of Maclean as forging the
"Scottish link" is precisely to underline his fatal nationalist
mistakes. The whole tone emanating from the SML is "the Scottish
working class", "redistribute Scotland's wealth", "interests of
Scottish workers", etc, etc. "Setting up SML has been the most
important political initiative in Scotland for many, many years",
reports ScottishMilitant. This whole emphasis
and slant represents a capitulation to nationalism, despite lip
service to internationalism.

Without class unity, there is no way forward for the Scottish
workers. That should be our starting point. Any section of a
Marxist tendency, set up in any part of Britain must set out from
the common interests of the workers of Britain, Europe and the
entire world. It should stress the unity of interests of the
workers of this Island in a common struggle against the common
enemy — the Scottish, English and Welsh capitalists.

This is not for sentimental reasons, but because the economies
of Scotland, Wales and England are indissolubly linked. A
separation of these countries would bring about a disaster for all
of them, but the heaviest price would, as always, be paid by the
working class.

Domination of monopolies

The idea that Scotland would be able to enjoy a genuine
independence under conditions of modern monopoly capitalism is
false to the core. Big capital would continue to dominate, as
before. Of the two remaining Clyde shipyards, Govan is owned by a
Norwegian company and Yarrows has been taken over by the
multinational GEC combine. At the present time, nearly 40% of the
top 100 companies in Scotland are foreign owned. Whereas 80% of
Scottish workers were employed not so long ago by companies based
in Scotland, today 80% are employed by firms based outside of
Scotland.

The fear of an isolated Scotland has forced the SNP to come out
with the slogan "Independence in Europe". However, the idea of a
viable independent Scottish economy in Europe is false. In today's
modern capitalist economy 500 monopolies control 90% of world
trade. A mere 25 monopolies account for 35% of total industrial
production worldwide. The largest multinational corporations have
annual turnovers greater than the state budgets of even major
countries. On a capitalist basis, with the economy owned by the
monopolies and banks, "independence", even in Europe, is an
illusion.

Europe, far from being a solution, would result in a debacle for
an independent capitalist Scotland. According to a Labour Party
report based upon European Commission figures, "the creation of a
single European market in 1992 initially will destroy more than
14,000 jobs in the Scottish economy and cut output by £237
million."

An independent capitalist Scotland would be an economy of
declining living standards for the working class. At present
Scotland receives between 10.5% and 11% of all UK public spending,
but provides between 8% and 8.25% of total tax revenues. The gap is
estimated at around £4 billion, which would be a catastrophic
blow to the economy. If you added the SNP's spending programme the
deficit would rise to a massive £8 billion. The nationalists
say this gap could be overcome by the oil tax revenues. To begin
with oil and gas revenues from the North Sea are estimated this
year to be only £1.2 billion. An independent Scotland would
face an immediate dispute over the location of the English/Scottish
sectors of the North Sea — with a significant proportion of
the oil fields remaining in English waters. Even the SNP admit that
only 70% of the oil would be likely to come to Scotland. The fact
also remains that oil revenue is very volatile, varying according
to the oil price, production levels and tax write-offs by the oil
companies. These are the economic facts of life of a capitalist
independent Scotland, despite the attempts of the SNP to ingratiate
themselves with the oil monopolies.

The Scottish economy remains fully integrated into the British
economy. That is the prime reason why Scottish business is opposed
to independence. As the Financial Times (14/2/92)
explained, "While the idea of devolution gathers some support, few
senior members of the Scottish business community approve of
outright independence." According to Brian Stewart, Chief executive
of Scottish and Newcastle, who expresses the fears of the Scottish
bourgeoisie, "independence or devolution may reduce the access of
Scottish companies to the English market. The planned single
European market is not regarded as an adequate solution either,
because it will for many years be much less integrated than the UK
market."

Our opposition to independence is based on a class opposition.
An independent capitalist Scotland would not solve a single problem
facing the working class and would have grave social and political
consequences. More importantly from the point of view of the unity
of the working class, enormous national hatreds would be kindled by
separation. Given the collapse of the economy, the spectre of
racial and sectarian divisions, compounded by the rise of
individual terrorism, would be a nightmare for the working class,
north and south of the border. The cause of the working class in
Scotland, England and Wales, would be put back. That is why it is
utterly irresponsible to adopt a light-minded attitude to this
question.

The unity of the Scottish, English and Welsh workers has been
forged in common struggle and organisation for generations. It is a
fundamental reality not only of economic but political life also.
Despite the fundamental errors and deeds of the reformist leaders,
the unity of the Labour and trade union movement in this Island
remains a colossal historical conquest which Marxists must defend
with all our might. Yet in the recent articles of
Militant, the idea of workers' unity is added on at the
end, as if it were an afterthought.

The whole thrust of these articles is in another direction
altogether. It is absolutely clear that a number of the leading
comrades in the SML have developed illusions in the idea of a
Scottish assembly. While we stand firmly for the idea of a Scottish
assembly with real powers, as one of our democratic demands, we
must honestly explain to the workers, that such an assembly, on a
capitalist basis, would not be able to resolve the fundamental
problems of the Scottish people. To foster illusions on this score
would be entirely false.

In his article, however, Alan McCombes actually puts forward the
perspective of a "Scottish workers' government" coming into
existence through the Scottish assembly:

"Such an assembly (in which genuine Socialists
have a majority) would in effect be a workers' government
acting with the backing of the one million organised workers and
the millions of unorganised women and young people in Scotland."
(Militant, 20/9/91)

This idea is a complete departure from Marxism. There is no
separate "Scottish Road to Socialism". It is the false demagogy of
the "left" wing of the nationalists, put forward by Sillars in the
Govan by-election: "a Workers' Parliament in a Workers' Scotland".
Without the support of the workers of England, Wales, and also
Ireland, such an assembly would be doomed from the start.
Faced with a direct challenge to their class rule the British
capitalists would not hesitate to dissolve the assembly, if
necessary putting down the movement in blood, by sending in the
army. There is too much at stake to allow such a threat to
materialise. The history of Scotland illustrates this fact. In
1919, fearing a social explosion, the Government sent in tanks and
troops to occupy Glasgow. The more recent example of Northern
Ireland shows the lengths to which the ruling class is prepared to
go.

The comrades might reply that they have no illusions in the
possibility of converting the Scottish Assembly into a "Scottish
workers' government" (though their statements prove otherwise), but
that they see the Assembly as a forum from which to express the
struggle of the working class in Scotland.

In reality, a Scottish Assembly would no more do that than the
present Parliament in Westminster. But on the other hand it would
foster dangerous illusions about a so-called "Scottish Road to
Socialism." We are in favour of a Scottish assembly, but we have to
understand its limitations and not glorify it.

Despite their protestations to the contrary, the comrades were
reflecting the pressures of nationalism, of Macleanism, when they
wrote in their draft Constitution for the SML, that their aim was
"a workers' government in Scotland", without making it clear that a
so-called "Scottish workers' government" is impossible without a
workers' government throughout Britain. It is the position of the
"Scottish Workers Republic".

Again the SML states it will "explain in detail how a
democratically planned economy would transform the lives of every
working class Scot...It will explain how the top 15 banks and
financial institutions in Scotland are sitting on top of a mountain
of wealth of at least £125 billion." This is none other than
a recipe for the "Scottish Road to Socialism". It shows how far the
leaders of the SML have abandoned the Marxist attitude to the
national question.

If one could imagine a situation where the Scottish workers took
power — which they could only do by means of an uprising
— without the support of the workers of England and Wales, it
would inevitably end up like the Paris Commune. Without a powerful
movement of support by workers in the rest of Britain, it would be
swiftly crushed. The Scottish working class cannot win in
isolation, but has to forge a close unity with the workers
throughout Britain, and internationally for that matter. Only then
can British capitalism be defeated.

Even the Bolshevik Revolution, which took place in a massive
country like Russia, would have been crushed by imperialism without
the support and solidarity of the workers of Europe and the whole
world.

This fundamental mistake is only explicable as a result of a
vain and misguided attempt to compete with the nationalists on
their own ground. Quite apart from the utopian character of these
ideas, they can only serve to add grist to the mill of the
nationalists.

Only by constantly raising the class issues, and emphasising the
need for class solidarity, can we hope to combat the poison of
nationalism in the working class and the youth. This does not mean
that we "ignore" the national question in Scotland now, any more
than we did eighteen years ago. We will fight for any
national-democratic demand which has the slightest progressive
content. But we will fight for it with the methods of the
proletariat, defending the class point of view of the proletariat
and ruthlessly combating and exposing the false and harmful
demagogy of nationalism.

While defending the right of self-determination for Scotland,
Marxists must stand firmly for a Socialist Britain, a Socialist
United States of Europe and a World Socialist Federation. That is
what should have been emphasised in the Constitution of any
organisation in Scotland, Wales, or anywhere else, which claims to
be Marxist.

It is true that the comrades added, as an afterthought, that the
aim of a Scottish workers' government was "part of the fight to
defeat capitalism in Britain and capitalism and Stalinism
throughout the world". But this does not make the formulation any
more correct. The fact remains that a "Scottish workers'
government" is a completely utopian idea, unless as part and parcel
of a revolutionary movement of the workers of Scotland, Wales and
England. It is this which can lead to enormous practical and
theoretical mistakes, and even the abandonment of Marxism for
nationalism in the future. The danger of a nationalist deviation,
moreover, will be multiplied a thousand fold by the policy of
trying to recruit large numbers of new, politically raw recruits,
as envisaged by the SML, unless they are educated in the
fundamentals of Marxism, especially in the idea of Socialist
Internationalism, in the spirit of implacable struggle against
nationalism in all its manifestations.

Role of Stalinism

For decades, the Stalinist "Communist" party played a pernicious
role in Scotland. In reality, they re-introduced the cancer of
nationalism into the Labour and trade union movement after the
Second World war, when the collapse of Macleanism had largely
driven it out of the organised working class.

The Labour movement had been healthily inoculated against
nationalism, and through it the mass of the working class, before
the Pandering of the "Communist" Party to nationalism, added to the
desperation of the Scottish masses, caused by the ruin of Scotland
by capitalism, led to the re-emergence of nationalist prejudices
among certain layers of the workers and youth.

Instead of combating these prejudices, the SML is pandering to
them. The very foundation of a "Scottish" Militant organisation,
and a "Scottish" Militant, is a clear indication of this
opportunism. Its creation is to stress the nationalist side of the
new organisation. There is no other explanation. Likewise, they
confuse the question of autonomy with independence. According to
the SML "we will take up the fight for national rights,
including the right to self-determination." "We are opposed to
narrow nationalism", states Militant (13/12/91), but in
the next breath states "if a majority of Scots choose
independence we would fight to ensure the will of the majority
was respected by Westminster." (our emphasis)

The main task of Marxists under these conditions is not to fight
for independence, but precisely to fight for workers' unity. This
is the central question. Despite all the protests, it is clear that
the SML is being drawn along the road of nationalism.

"If Labour fails to win the General Election", states
Militant (31/1/92), "simmering nationalist sentiment could
become active revolt against Westminster rule..." The Labour
Movement must urgently take up socialist policies "to roll back the
nationalist tide." But what else should they do to accomplish
this?

According to Militant, if the Tories win the next
election, "then the call must go out to make Scotland
ungovernable...It should be linked to a boycott of Westminster by
Labour and SNP MPs." (13/12/91) The article then goes on to quote
Charles Gray, the leader of Strathclyde regional council ("for once
we are in agreement with Gray"): "They must be prepared to break
away from Westminster and form a breakaway parliament." What is
this if not a call for independence? How else will the workers
see it? How will they view Labour MPs linking up with the Scottish
nationalists, boycotting Westminster and then establishing a
separate Scottish Parliament? How does this further the cause of
the working class? The boycott of Westminster would reinforce the
Tories and be a blow to the workers in England and Wales. It is
nothing more than a capitulation to a pseudo-radical
nationalism.

The problems of the Scottish workers flow not from being linked
to England and Wales, as the nationalists argue, but because of the
crisis of capitalism which weighs just as heavily on the workers
and their families South of the border. Rickets, dysentery and
malnutrition also occur in the poor inner-cities of England on a
par with Scotland. The oppression and exploitation of working
people is a product of capitalist society and can only be removed
by the socialist transformation of society. This, in turn, requires
the unity of all workers, irrespective of nation, colour, creed,
sex or language.

That is why the idea of workers' unity must be to the forefront
— not just put in as an afterthought. Anything else is a
deviation in the direction of nationalism.

Lenin and Trotsky fought all their lives against the oppression
of small nations. But they also detested what Trotsky described as
"a small nation Philistine mentality", and everything associated
with it.

Even the Scottish nationalists appeal demagogically for an
independent "Scotland within Europe" (whatever that means). Why is
this? Because the workers are dubious about the prospects for an
isolated Scotland. And they are not wrong.

The arguments of the comrades about national "culture" is wafer
thin. Alan McCombes in Militant, is positively euphoric
about "The phenomenal success of the Gaelic rock group
‘Runrig', the biggest selling group in Scotland." What the
comrade fails to mention is that the lead singer of this group,
reflecting the pressure of the working class, is advocating a vote,
not for the SNP, nor the SML, but for Labour!

There certainly is a national Scottish culture, but the appeal
to "national culture" on the part of these comrades (mainly in the
form of rock groups and football) is not at all in the spirit of
Lenin and Trotsky, but comes direct from the stables of Otto Bauer,
the Austrian "Marxist" theoretician of "national cultural
autonomy", who was sharply criticised by Lenin.

World market

Marx explained, over 150 years ago, that the historically
progressive task of capitalism was to create a world market, to
which all national states no matter how big and powerful, are
subordinate.

The last four decades have seen a colossal intensification of
the international division of labour, and the unification of the
entire world into one single, indissoluble unit. That is why the
nation state has become a reactionary barrier to development of the
productive forces. It is the task of Socialism and the working
class to sweep away the national barriers, not erect new ones.

This is how Marx presented the process of capitalist
development, with brilliant foresight, in the pages of the
Communist Manifesto nearly 150 years ago:

"The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of
the world market given cosmopolitan character to production and
consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of reactionists,
it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on
which it stood...

"In the place of the old national seclusion and
self-sufficing, we have intercourse in every direction. Universal
interdependence of nations. And in material, so in intellectual
production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become
common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness
become more and more impossible, and from numerous national and
local literatures, there arises a world literature."
(Communist Manifesto, our emphasis)

The present epoch, more than any other, is the epoch of the
giant multinationals, world economy, world diplomacy, world
politics, and world culture.

Polemicising against Otto Bauer the "Austro-Marxist", Lenin
wrote:

"The aim of socialism is not only to abolish the
present division of mankind into small states and national
isolation, not only to bring the nations closer to each other, but
also to merge them. And in order to achieve this aim, we must on
the one hand, explain to the masses the reactionary nature of the
ideas of Renner and Otto Bauer concerning so-called ‘cultural
national autonomy'."

Nowadays, it is increasingly difficult to see a difference
between young people from any industrial country. In the way they
dress, in the kind of music they listen to, in their cultural and
sporting activities: all have become to a greater extent
"internationalised", leaping over the old national borders.

The whole thrust of the argument of Alan McCombes and the SML
follows the spirit of Otto Bauer, not Lenin, in his approach to
"national culture". This pandering to petit-bourgeois nationalism
reflects precisely the kind of "small nation Philistine mentality"
which Trotsky dismissed with disdain.

There is a high degree of volatility at the present time in
Scotland. This was reflected in a Scotsman/ITN poll in January
which claimed over 50% of the population were in favour of
independence. This has subsequently dropped to around 30-odd % in a
series of recent polls. As a counter-balance, it should be noted
that in January the ICM research poll rated independence, home rule
and devolution as joint sixth [greatest concern], behind
unemployment, the NHS, poll tax, standard of living, the economy,
and financial help for the needy. This shows how "independence" is
perceived at the present time. Nevertheless, this latent qualified
support for "independence", represents the real danger that is
posed by nationalism in the future.

The factors that gave a recent boost to nationalism was the
defeat of the Tories in the Kincardine and Deeside by-election,
which reduced their MPs to single figures, as well as the early
closure of the Ravenscraig steelworks.

Class unity

For Marxists it is essential not to lose one's bearings and get
carried away by ephemeral moods. We must look at the underlying
processes developing in society. The swings in the opinion polls
reflect a general underlying volatility in society. The support for
independence has fluctuated widely. However, on the basis of the
further crisis of capitalism, and the bankruptcy of reformism,
there is a danger that a section of the workers and youth can swing
over to nationalism, as we foresaw almost two decades ago. For
that very reason, it is necessary to stress the need for class
unity.

Above all, it is essential to wage an implacable struggle
against any attempt to divide the workers' movement along national,
religious or sectarian lines. As Trotsky wrote: "one form of
organisation may be better, the other worse: but above all
organisational forms stands the necessity of the unity of class
organisation." (Trotsky, The National Struggle and the Unity of
the Proletariat, emphasis in original)

In the recent period, the SNP vote has risen considerably from
its 1987 level where it got 14% of the vote and five seats. At
present the opinion polls put it on around 25-28% — double
their 1987 performance. According to Alex Salmond, the SNP leader:
"The Scottish people's demand for independence is becoming
irresistible."

But where has the nationalists' support come from? In the main
it has not come predominantly from Labour support, but from the
Liberal Democrats and the Tories. Whereas Labour has maintained its
1987 share of the vote, the Liberal Democrats have fallen by 10
points. To date, apart from Govan, the SNP have failed to make a
breakthrough in the Labour inner-city strongholds. In the General
Election the SNP may possibly take one or two seats from Labour,
but that is all. The fact is there are very few seats where the SNP
are a threat to Labour. Where the nationalists are more likely to
score is against the Tories and they have a prospect of taking a
couple of seats from them. As the Scotsman (29/1/92)
pointed out, "The electoral system is a formidable barrier to any
SNP breakthrough at Westminster. Even if Jim Sillars were to retain
Govan, the SNP would probably win no more than 8 seats."

The decision of the SML to stand a candidate against Labour in
the general election is a fundamental break with the methods
pursued by Militant in the past. It flies in the face of the desire
of the working class — North and South of the Border —
for unity to defeat the main political enemy, the Tories, who
represent Big Business.

Admittedly, the policies of right wing Labour leaders in
Scotland, as elsewhere, has provoked a feeling of revulsion and
frustration in sections of the youth and advanced workers. But the
Marxists have a duty, in the words of Lenin, to "patiently explain"
the need to transform the existing mass organisations, the trade
unions and Labour Party, and not to be carried away by these same
moods of frustration and impatience. The attempt to create a
breakaway "independent" movement in the form of SML is a adventure,
doomed to failure, and will not have the desired effect of
preventing the growth of nationalist moods among sections of the
youth and workers. On the contrary, the type of arguments now being
advanced by these comrades, which in effect pander to nationalist
prejudices will have the opposite effect.

In reality, there is a fundamental change in the strategic
orientation of these comrades. In the past, Militant had a proud
record of patient work in the Labour and trade union movement which
achieved great results. Now, in their search for new layers outside
of the Labour Movement, all this is being thrown away.

The trade union question

Nowhere is the result of this more glaring than in the trade
union field. It is an axiom of Marxism that you do not encourage
the splitting of the trade unions, the basic organisations of the
working class. It was never the policy of Militant in the past to
support moves to separate the advanced workers in the unions from
the rest of the class. Marxists have always opposed tooth and nail
adventures like the setting up of the Pilkington Glassworkers'
union. Now Militant has capitulated to the temporary moods of
frustration of the Militant oil workers. As a result of their
experience in the recent strikes, these workers feel betrayed by
the union leaders. Many of them have refused the offer of a
compromise in the form of a joint committee of all the unions,
similar to the CONFED, which would undoubtedly have represented a
step forward. Instead, a section of the oilmen have set up their
own union, the OILC. The argument in favour of this step was to
"organise the unorganised oil workers." Incredibly, at the national
Editorial Board of Militant, when a leading Scottish
comrade put forward this position, there was not a single word of
dissent from the "leaders" or any other members. Articles duly
appeared in the pages of Militant promoting this
short-sighted position.

"Militant urges every offshore worker to
join OILC," states the paper (14/2/92), but adds shamefacedly,
"while at the same time holding on to their official union cards."
How is this a viable option? Most workers would not be interested
in supporting/financing two unions. Also the bulk of
unions would not allow its members to hold two cards. It is simply
an unsuccessful attempt to cover their backside from their
previously held position. The article then concedes, "some workers
may still be reluctant to join the new organisation", and so urges
the OILC to "call for the establishment of a joint union
confederation offshore, bringing workers from all unions
together."

The OILC has been supported by the SNP for purely opportunistic
reasons. According to an interview in the Socialist (10th
March), "Salmond accepts the SNP lacks a trade union base, but
stresses its support at shop steward level. The OILC's struggle for
recognition is an example where, he claims, his party could take a
more progressive line than Labour because of its lack of
institutional links with union officials."

However, not to be out-done by the SNP, Militant has
followed suit! They have done a volte-face and completely abandoned
their past position, ending up tail-ending the nationalists. They
are on a slippery slope that will lead them to abandon further
their principles.

The Militant comrades should restudy the writings of Lenin, and
especially Trotsky on the Stalinists' "Third Period", dealing with
the trade unions, and the impermissible tactic of splitting these
organisations. In relation to Scotland, they should take note of
the experience of the United Mineworkers of Scotland, which was
artificially created by the "Communist" party in the early 1930's
arising out of its policy to create "revolutionary" Red trade
unions.

This split-off from the Miners Federation of Great Britain
created many difficulties in forging a national mineworkers' union,
particularly in face of Spencerism. The split away finally
dissolved in 1935.

These ultra-left adventures in the trade union field were
roundly condemned by Trotsky as going against the fundamental
interests of the workers' movement.

In 1956, the Marxists opposed the actions of the "Blue Union",
which represented the stevedores, when it attempted to split the
Transport and General Workers Union, and organise amongst the
dockers generally. At that time the T&G was under the complete
domination of the right wing. The ultra-left sects supported the
"Blue Union" as a more left-wing trade union. This whole adventure
resulted in the emergence of non-unionism on the docks in
Manchester, Liverpool, Hull and elsewhere. Whereas thousands left
the T&G and joined the "Blue Union", thousands left to join no
union at all. In Liverpool, which was previously 100% unionised,
non-unionism rose to as high as 20%. Later, the "Blue Union" moved
to the right and the T&G to the left.

Lessons of Pilkingtons

These comrades have forgotten these important lessons of working
class history. A betrayal by the leaders of the GMWU in the 1970
strike at Pilkingtons glass works and the indignation over the
victimisation of some of the leaders led them to the setting up of
a new Glassworkers Union. This was enthusiastically supported not
only by the Socialist Workers Party, the Healeyites and the other
sects, but also by the Tribunites and the "Communist" Party. Only
the Marxist tendency, while consistently supporting the struggle of
the glassworkers, firmly and tactfully advised against such a
course. What was worked out theoretically very quickly became
apparent in practice. It ended in a disaster. The GMWU officials
collaborated with the employers. 130 militants were sacked
and victimised, the Glassworkers Union disintegrated, and the GMWU
bureaucracy together with the employers gained from the outcome.
These workers - misled by the sects — had not understood that
it was necessary to work in the union and fight for a militant
programme of demands. As a result, the union bureaucracy and the
employers were able to separate the more industrially and
politically backward layers from the relatively "advanced"
militants and get the majority of the workers to become
antagonistic to them.

This has now become a real danger with the creation of the OILC.
As Militant (14/2/92) admitted: "Leaders of the official
unions have played on fears that by establishing a new union it
could open up dangerous divisions, only benefiting the bosses. That
fear still exists in some sectors..."

Now there is a repetition. No doubt the sects, the different
"Communist" Parties, Tribune and others, not guided by principles,
will repeat their previous errors. Only this time the
Militant has lined up with them in supporting this
suicidal policy.

To create a new union where several exist already is a Herculean
task. Workers do not easily desert old organisations to go over to
a new one. The Stalinists made the same mistake — which we
opposed — with the setting up of the EPIU amongst the
electricians, and the splitting of the EETPU. This new union
despite TUC recognition is still-born and has only a tiny minority
of the electricians in it. The EETPU claims at least 300,000 and is
now merging with the AEU, while the EPIU claims only 4,000 members.
All they have succeeded in doing is to separate the active layer of
lefts from the mass of electrical workers.

The oil workers are making the same mistake which could have
worse consequences than the EPIU split. Of course in the abstract
an industrial union is better than a number of separate unions. But
we have to take the union movement as it has developed
historically. A CONFED type delegate meeting as suggested by the
union leaders would have been a step forward in comparison with the
present position. The creation of the new union is a big mistake.
It will not offer a way forward for the oil workers. It will be
difficult to organise the unorganised oil workers who will see the
unions as "quarrelling amongst themselves". The consequence would
be disunity amongst the oil workers - the OILC after a period would
decline and possibly disintegrate. Unfortunately only the powerful
oil employers would benefit.

Incredibly the new split has taken place at a time when a
significant number of trade unions are discussing mergers,
including the left-wing NUM. This has arisen from the background
where trade union membership has fallen from 12 million in 1979 to
8 million today.

Theory is the generalised experience of the working class.
Theory always takes its revenge on those who take it lightly.
Abandoning theory on the national question has its own
consequences. The oil workers are mainly Scottish. No doubt the
Nationalists have been fishing in troubled waters, although they
will abandon these workers with the same light-mindedness later
on.

Wrong tactics

Marxists have a responsibility to the working class, to the oil
workers, and to themselves, to warn these workers as tactfully as
possible of their mistaken course. Instead, because of their
deviation towards nationalism, these comrades leading the SML are
playing a harmful role. They are reinforcing the mistakes of the
OILC. "The OILC has won tremendous authority," states
Militant (14/2/92), "it will be the OILC that shows the
way." Again, "The OILC has given confidence to offshore workers. It
has built a reputation as a fighting organisation. And as a result
it has built." It goes on to list the figures of recruits for the
union.

However, the idea, put forward to justify a wrong tactic, that
they would "organise the unorganised" has been shown to be largely
false. The Morning Star reported that the OILC had been
registered as a "new union", claiming a "substantial membership",
"but the union declined to divulge a membership figure, beyond
saying that it had reached ‘well over 1000' since OILC was
founded last October." (Morning Star, 12/02/92, our
emphasis)

If the leaders of the union refuse to give membership figures,
it is highly unlikely that they have reached a thousand members.
And for the sake of this, the leaders of Militant are prepared to
jettison their principles and throw away the lessons of decades of
patient work in the trades unions!

Similarly staggering is the casual acceptance of the idea of
"regional bargaining". This would be a clear setback for the
workers, unless it was linked to a national framework, otherwise it
would allow the employers to play off one section of workers
against another — to the disadvantage of all workers,
Scottish, Welsh, English or whatever.

This ultra-left adventuristic policy in relation to the OILC can
only result in the end in the demoralisation of the oil workers and
a fall in the number of organised workers in the oilfields. It
could also push them into the open arms of the Scottish
nationalists. This is a classic example of the mistaken approach of
Militant in the recent period. Their blind pursuit of their new
"turn" to independent open work is pushing them in the direction of
the complete abandonment of the Marxist method.

Perspectives of the "turn"

The new approach of Militant in Scotland, and the establishment
of the SML, is a product of their impatience and frustration over
their lack of support for their ideas, despite leading a mass
movement over the poll tax. Their failure to grow is blamed on
Militant's past links with the Labour Party, which is now
portrayed as part of the Establishment. Their "Scottish turn" is
seen as a solution to this problem — that they cast off this
albatross around their necks. By breaking with Labour,
Militant explained it could prevent big sections of the
youth from going over to Scottish nationalism — at least in
the big cities. With the Labour Party moving rapidly to the right,
and the SNP to the "left", a vacuum was opening up for them.

In reality, Militant's abandonment of their traditional
orientation towards the mass organisations (the paper now contains
its own MilitantManifesto for the election!) has
led them down the road of ultra-leftism and at the same time
opportunism. "Opportunism and ultra-leftism," states Lenin, "are
head and tail of the same coin."

In their document on "Perspectives for Scotland", they state:
"But in Scotland, it is the SNP which will be the main beneficiary
of the inevitable disillusionment with the Labour government." What
then is left of the rationale for this new "turn" and the creation
of the SML?

In reality, the SML organisation pays lip-service to the
importance of a "struggle against nationalism" in Scotland. How can
they explain that in the last year there has been no systematic
work conducted amongst the nationalist youth — which claims
80 youth groups throughout Scotland - or even the SNP in general.
It is a dereliction of duty that no work of this character has been
undertaken. Instead they have the hare-brained idea to set up
independent youth organisations: Militant Youth and Militant
Students, as well as the adult organisation, Scottish Militant
Labour. The argument that we must have "flexible" tactics is shown
to be phrase-mongering. The Marxist tendency in Britain has always
been prepared to devote some forces to any left development among
important sections of politically active workers, without
abandoning our fundamental strategy of work within the mass
organisations. One cannot fight nationalism by pandering to the
nationalists and separatist prejudices.

We have in the past always acted on Lenin's strategy that all
working class groups must be in one national organisation even
where it was a question of fighting for self-determination. Now we
have thrown all this overboard, for the sake of an adventure. This
will have dire consequences that these comrades do not foresee. By
their tail-ending of nationalism, the youth in Scotland will be
increasingly pushed towards the SNP. In this way Militant believes
it will "win" some new youth. In reality they will lose them to the
nationalists.

In the Basque Country, the sizeable ultra-left group of
Mandelites, with a similar opportunist policy towards the
nationalists, lost 3000 members between 1974 and 1978 to the
nationalist parties. Again in Italy in the 1960s, this Mandelite
tendency adapted itself towards the Maoists, resulting in the bulk
of its supporters being lost to Maoism!

Scottish perspectives

Most of the SML propaganda is reduced to phrase-mongering. They
themselves say: "In the improbable event of an SNP government these
[nationalists'] grand promises would come to nothing."

Thus the SML does not see the nationalists gaining a majority in
Scotland. They go further: "The simple message of the SNP, that the
electorate had a straight choice between waiting, perhaps for an
eternity, for a Labour government or fighting back now with the
SNP, had an irresistible attraction for working class voters. With
Labour now running the Tories neck and neck...workers have tended
to rally round the Labour Party...although the SNP has failed to
make inroads into the Labour vote in the past period they
nevertheless have the support of 33% of 18-35 year olds according
to the opinion polls."

As is the method of Militant, they attempt to look in all
directions at the same time. This is not the method of Marxism, but
the method of empiricism and eclecticism. We have been accused
recently by the editor of Militant, of making
"astrological predictions" when defining a Marxist perspective
(Two Trends, page 4). Stung by our previous criticism, he
protests that Militant does not "seek a cowardly position
of false neutrality on issues".

However, in the most recent issue of the Militant
International Review (MIR Election Special 1992), we see
precisely this "cowardly position of false neutrality". In the main
editorial entitled "A New Era Opens", it begins with the incredible
— and very neutral — statement: "The result
[of the election] cannot be predicted"! This is the
startling advice it gives to its readers.

Marxists do not have a crystal ball to predict the future.
However, by combining, to use the words of Trotsky, "subjective and
objective data, it is possible to establish a tentative perspective
of the movement, that is a scientifically based
prediction, without which a serious revolutionary struggle is
in general inconceivable. But a prediction in politics does not
have the character of a perfect blue-print; it is a working
hypothesis...Even though the actual development of the struggle
never fully corresponds to the prognosis, that does not absolve
us from making political predictions." (Trotsky,
Writings 1930, page 50, our emphasis)

In working out perspectives it is important to weigh up all the
variants, but then to give the most likely development of events.
The MIR, however, faces in all directions, fearful of
committing a mistake, and being totally mesmerised by the results
of the latest batch of opinion poll results. "The result of the
election," continues the article, "could be a ‘1924 scenario'
— where Labour formed a minority government dependent upon
Liberal support, even though the Tories were the largest party; a
‘1929 scenario' — where Labour was the largest single
party, but still a minority government; or even 1964 — where
Labour won a small overall majority, is still possible but...a
minority Tory government is almost ruled out...If the Tories do
win, however..." (page 4). You pays your money and you takes your
choice!

For Socialist Appeal we have made it clear, given the
underlying processes developing in society, the most likely result
of the General Election is a Labour Government. The SNP, despite
all its rhetoric, will not succeed in making a breakthrough on the
electoral front in Scotland. The overwhelming feeling in the
working class is to get rid of the Tories.

However, the coming to power of a Kinnock Labour Government,
while experiencing a "honeymoon period" for 6-12-18 months, will
lead to widespread disillusionment as it attempts to manage
capitalism. Early reforms on pensions and child benefit will give
way to counter-reforms as the acute problems of the economy
re-emerge. Whereas this disillusionment will mean high levels of
abstentions in elections generally, in England it can result in a
growth of support for the Liberal Democrats, while in Scotland and
Wales, because of the national question, it can result in the
growth of nationalism.

At first, the victory for Labour, which has pledged to bring
into being a Scottish Assembly in the first year of office, will
tend to undermine the nationalists. There will be a certain mood to
give Labour a chance. However, the move towards counter-reforms
under economic crisis, will push layers towards the nationalists,
as in the late 1960s and 1970s. In October 1974, the SNP gained 11
MPs with 30% of the vote (gaining two seats from Labour and four
from the Tories). However, with the promise of devolution and
referendums from Labour, together with the big class battles
between 1978 and 1979, their support began to crumble. By the 1979
general election the SNP was shattered, only managing to hold onto
two seats.

The extent of the support for the Nationalists will depend on
the course of the class struggle in Britain. A big industrial
movement in England and Wales, as well as in Scotland will rekindle
the class solidarity of the workers, and cut across nationalism.
This was the case in 1984-85 during the year-long miner's strike,
which brought the class issues and the need for unity to the
foreground.

The fact that the overwhelming majority of the unions are
organised on a British level — which we support — means
that national action would have profound effects in Scotland as in
England and Wales. The fact that practically all the industrial
unions are organically linked to Labour through affiliation is of
decisive importance. This applies as much in Scotland as in the
rest of Britain.

Growth of nationalism?

The support now for independence has fallen to around 30%. This
corresponds roughly to the SNP's support in the opinion polls.

The biggest support has been for devolution, which Labour has
advocated. Nevertheless, given the conditions that are likely to
open up under Labour, the big growth of nationalism at a certain
stage seems almost inevitable.

Of course Labour itself would be affected by a rise in support
for the nationalists. A section of the party would move into
opposition against the Labour government, possibly around George
Galloway, Dennis Canavan and other MPs. This opposition could even
go as far as a split in the party in Scotland and the formation of
some form of left Scottish Labour grouping. This development would
most likely be on a higher level than the Scottish Labour party,
under Sillars and Robinson in 1976.

Some Scottish MPs would be looking at their own situation. Under
those circumstances the SNP could win a swathe of seats from Labour
in the inner city areas. This possible split from Labour would
however suffer the same fate as the SLP, it would disintegrate with
part of it ending up in the SNP.

A victory for the Tories, which is less likely, would
nevertheless have profound implications north of the border. The
consequences of a fourth Tory victory, when Scotland has
overwhelmingly rejected Toryism (they could be reduced to half a
dozen seats), could see a big rise in nationalism. Under these
circumstances, Major would most likely grant concessions — a
limited autonomy — in the hope of containing the
situation.

It could not be ruled out that such a development, which would
see the back of Kinnock, could also provoke a split in the Labour
Party in Scotland, with the creation of some kind of Scottish
Labour Party. This "pro-independence" split could go over to the
nationalists. Marxists would oppose this split in the Labour Party,
as with the SLP in 1976 — to preserve the unity of the Labour
organisations, despite their leaders. A split on these lines would
be a blind alley, born out of political frustration. Such a
scenario could only benefit the nationalists. The call, likewise to
withdraw from Westminster can only be viewed as a call for
separation and independence.

There is no artificial shortcut to the defeat of nationalism.
The idea of the SML counter-posing themselves to Labour on the one
hand and the nationalists on the other is a farce.

"It is unreal to imagine," claims the SML, "that
we could cut across this reaction to right-wing Labour unless we
are able to make a more open appeal. Only by having an independent
organisation, with an open face, would we be able to attract the
best of the workers and youth." (our emphasis)

The idea that a tiny organisation like the SML could somehow cut
across this development is utterly utopian. If there is a strong
surge towards nationalism, the only force capable of stopping it is
the Labour Movement. Despite this, their document on "Scottish
Perspectives" still maintains: "even in the short term the
formation of the open organisation of Marxism could act as
a powerful pole of attraction to SNP supporters and even members,
who are not dyed-in-the-wool nationalists, but who see in the SNP
the only real organised alternative to Labour. This would be
particularly the case with the youth."

Even with this perspective, these comrades have not even the
courage of their convictions, they are very "conditional". If you
cannot win workers round the "banner" of the paper, it will make a
negligible difference if you have a signboard proclaiming the
setting up of an "organisation".

They argue that it was the association with Labour which was
alienating the youth in Scotland from Militant and
preventing them from halting the movement of a layer of the youth
towards nationalism. But then they decide not only to put the name
"Labour" in the title of the new organisation, but also to announce
with a flourish of trumpets that the aim of the SML is — to
transform the Labour Party!

Worst of all worlds

This is to get the worst of all worlds. How does the declared
aim of the new organisation differ from the aim of the paper which
allegedly "alienated" the youth? What atom of difference does the
declaration of an "organisation" make?

Their past claims that they would organise a founding conference
of 1000 for the Scottish Militant Labour has fallen flat. The
conference at the end of February attracted only 200 supporters
(out of supposedly 600 in Scotland), despite the articles in the
ScottishMilitant boasting about dozens of new
recruits in the recent period. In the issue of the 10th January for
example, it states "Almost 500 people went to the first two
meetings in Glasgow, held in the week before Christmas." It
continued that at the Pollok meeting "15 people filled in forms to
join SML on the spot," and then added, "another 65 signed up to
support the campaign and wanted more information about joining.

At the following meeting in Royston, where 150 reportedly
attended, the article says "20 applied to join Militant Labour at
the meeting and 100 others signed up for more information —
in other words, virtually the entire meeting."

Yet despite this apparent euphoria, all catalogued in detail in
ScottishMilitant, the founding conference did
not mention a single word about the attendance figures! Just as the
pre-conference meeting in Glasgow only attracted 60 people from the
whole of Scotland, so the low figures for the founding conference
illustrate the fact that the SML is already beginning to run out of
steam. In fact out of the 200 who attended, 50 left in the
afternoon.

The launching of the SML is an adventure. The comrades lack a
sense of proportion and are repeating the experience of the
sectarian groups on the fringes of the Labour Movement. It will end
in disaster.

As always, false theories and false perspectives lead people to
tie themselves in knots, from which they will not find it so easy
to extricate themselves as they imagine.

Failure of Walton

And all this for what? For the purpose of putting up a candidate
in Pollok in the general election, and possible candidates for a
future Assembly. For this mess of pottage, they have thrown away
the results of years of patient work.

We already had a foretaste of what to expect in Walton, with the
putting up of an "independent — Real Labour" candidate
against Labour. That achieved the grand total of 2,600 votes and
gave the excuse to the Labour right to embark on a new wave of
expulsions and remove the two Marxist MPs. Their lack of
consistency on this question is illustrated by the fact that the
"Real Labour" candidate is not standing in Walton in this election.
So much for the argument that it would be a "dereliction of duty"
not to stand against the official Labour candidate, Peter Kilfoyle!
What is Militant now calling on the workers of Walton to
do in this election? Abstain? Vote Kilfoyle? Militant is
totally silent on this question.

The consequences of Walton has been to strengthen the hand of
the right wing and establish a precedent for the expulsion of other
Left MPs who might oppose the reactionary measures of a future
Labour Government.

Just as with Walton, they thought the Mersey was going to be set
on fire, so they now imagine they will set the Clyde alight by
standing against Labour in Pollok.

"We could creak an incredible impact, not only in
the local area but throughout Scotland," they argue.

They do not understand that, especially in a general election,
the mass of the Scottish workers, beginning with the activists in
the trade unions, are striving for a Labour Government, not because
they like the policies of Kinnock, but because they see no
alternative.

The idea that the candidature of a small independent left group
could have a major impact demonstrates a complete lack of
proportion. Have they forgotten the lessons of Jimmy Reid, the
leader of UCS, when he stood against Labour in Clydebank for the
"Communist" Party in 1974, polling a few thousand votes? Even Dick
Douglas, when he stood in the Regional elections against Labour,
despite being a sitting MP, was still defeated. This demonstrates
the loyalty of the working class to its traditional organisations,
despite the image of the leadership. They have no mass alternative.
The standing of the SML in Pollok will not create even a ripple on
the Clyde, or anywhere else.

Insofar as the Scottish and national media pay any attention to
the election campaign of the new organisation it will be
exclusively for the purpose of portraying it as a split in the
Labour camp. This will not benefit anyone except the class enemy.
And after the election, there will be no further free publicity.
The tap will be fumed off. The new organisation within a measurable
period will sink like a stone.

At the present time, when the capitalist class is launching a
furious ideological counter-offensive against the ideas of
socialism, it is the duty of Marxists to stand firm in defence of
the fundamental ideas and principles. We must, above all, reject
the false road of shortcuts and panaceas, which leads to the
quagmire of opportunism and ultra-leftism — the head and tail
of the same coin.

In the coming period the working class throughout Britain will
enter into struggle, and carry out the task of transforming and
re-transforming their organisations. Those "Marxists" who fail to
understand these basic lessons will be doomed to sectarian
isolation. For ourselves we will fight within the Labour and trade
union movement for genuine socialist ideas, which on the basis of
experience will become the property of the mass of workers in
Britain and internationally.

In the words of John Maclean at his trial in May 1918, we stand
here not as the accused; but as the accusers of capitalism dripping
with blood from head to foot. "No matter what your accusations
against me may be; no matter what reservations you keep at the back
of your head, my appeal is to the working class. I appeal
exclusively to them because they and they only can bring about the
time when the whole world will be in one brotherhood, on a sound
economic inundation. That, and that alone, can be the means of
bringing about a reorganisation of Society. That can only be
obtained when the people of the world get the world, and retain the
world."

AGAINST ULTRA-LEFTISM AND
OPPORTUNISM!NO CONCESSIONS TO THE
IDEAS OF BOURGEOIS AND PETIT-BOURGEOIS NATIONALISM!
WE CONTINUE TO FIGHT POR THE IDEAS OF CLASS UNITY AND
INTERNATIONALISM AS THE ONLY WAY FORWARD FOR THE WORKERS
EVERYWHERE.